http://triablogue.blogspot.fr/2012/07/f ... heism.html

love to know a good response to this

A good eye-roll is sufficient for drivel of this caliber.

funeral for atheism.

Ben seems to have done a pretty good job before all the sycophants showed up.

If the person has a point to make, he/she should make it. Not make unnecessary, unbacked, meaningless assumptions about how their supposed opponents would respond.

I guess he's saying that epistemic norms are parasitic on moral norms and that insofar as atheistic views cannot ground the former they also cannot ground the latter. Atheists therefore, unable as they are to ground the categorical 'should', should take some sort of fatalistic or demoralised stance toward their life/intellectual/moral projects. Or something.

He tries to avoid putting the point positively by phrasing the demoralisation in terms of 'But why...?"

Why stop at funerals? By his/her flawed logic, atheists shouldn't show any emotion at any life situation, because all emotions are a product of evolution and understanding evolution apparently means we should only ever be passive observers to its effects. But specifically in the area of funerals, it would seem far more problematic for me that people who claim to believe that their family members are going "to a better place" would be so distraught about the fact. I think the fact that someone no longer exists and you'll never see them again is worth crying about far more than someone being granted entry into the greatest place ever, and you not seeing them for a while. And yet very few Christians at funerals act in a way that suggests they have faith that the latter is what's going to happen. Far more seem to act in a way remarkably similar to atheists who know they'll never see their dead friend/family member again.

The proper response to this idiotic drivel is: You're a fuckwit.

No more needs to be said. It's bollocks from start to finish, aside from the opening question, which he should turn on himself, because the credulous have been hanging on for decades, despite having no argument, let alone having lost it.

The person is subnormally mentally endowed. No reason to engage with him.

InfernalTank wrote:http://triablogue.blogspot.fr/2012/07/funeral-for-atheism.html

love to know a good response to this

Anyone who thinks that you can argue your body into behaving differently by reflecting on the objective point or value of such behaviour is, most likely, as we speak, massively failing with their current exercise regime/relationship/promotion prospects/alcoholics anonymous meetings/whatever.

So there's no objective grounds not to go around murdering people. So what? I really, really have no inclination whatsoever to murder anyone. I also have no inclination whatsoever to eat my own shit. I make that comparison because I find that both disinclinations are controlled quite heavily by a visceral sense of disgust, and that's probably enough for me.

What gives me the creeps about theists who bang on about objective morality is the prospect that, if it weren't for their stupid religious texts, they would happily go out and do some horrible crime or fulfill some other sick fantasies like those their good Old Testament God enjoyed. I mean, is their belief in objective morality the only thing standing in the way of their wish to act like complete shit-heads? In that case, let's just point out that these people are shit-heads, plain and simple, and that if their Bibles are just a leash that stops them hurting anyone, you don't want to have any association with them.

I have yet to see a valid theistic argument for an objective morality. Their god existing would not make morality any more objective.

It doesn't matter how much you know, or how powerful you are, or how many magical spells you know, your opinion on what is right and what is wrong is just that, an opinion. You still can't derive any moral "Oughts" from the "is" of whatever property you give your pet deity.

Does anyone know how I can get to post on that site?

Here's what I've tried posting

Moral relativism is the only game in town, and it always has been. Thou shalt not kill, until some priest says God commands it. Thou shalt not steal, unless it's the land and virgin women of the neighbouring tribe that God has commanded you kill. Just how much of the Old Testament objective morality do you subscribe to? Stoned any adulterers lately? Do you think it civilised to do so? What about wearing mixed fibres? And don't get me started on disrespectful children. I got into all sorts of trouble trying to have mine killed, though surely God was on my side, don't you think?
Now, I'm married. I went about it in a very civilised manner - ask my wife. But then I read that bit in the Old Testament about a rapist having to marry his victim, and realised I could have ended up marrying some utterly gorgeous pop star, if only I abandoned my atheistic moral relativism & took on those Biblical absolutes. Well, if she ever leaves me, I won't make that mistake again; Rhianna is hot, and very rich, and God has given me a way to make her mine.

So someone's finally found some evidence for gods, have they? Funny, try as I might I couldn't find any provided in that post, just a few assertions that there would be some bad consequences if that guy's specific god doesn't exist. So on what basis has he shown that atheism is somehow 'dead'?

The absence of objective morality does not mean that basic moral code enshrined in law regarding personal behaviour is not something that is necessary in order for society to function. The fact that it is less than perfect is no reason to abandon any attempts to establish it. The alternative to that is anarchy where everyone is only restricted by their own moral code and nothing else. Furthermore the subjective interpretation of objective morality renders it entirely meaningless. Even within belief systems there is no uniformity of opinion on the specific parameters of this so it is a bit rich to accuse atheists of relative moralism when theists are just as prone to it themselves. It is one thing to say objective morality comes from God but when those who actually believe in him cannot agree on exactly what that is then it is just empty rhetoric. Something that is objective by default cannot have multiple interpretations. Seven of the ten Commandments do not actually require belief for them to be practised anyway. So there is a significant overlap between what atheists and theists believe or can believe in anyway as pertaining to morality. And indeed five of the ten are within reason perfectly acceptable and which I have no problem with at all [ the last two are unacceptable as they are thought crimes ] It is not therefore as if all atheists have one moral code and all theists another moral code with zero compatibility between them. Because in actual fact the origin of morality lies in psychology not religion. As we are all psychological beings it is not therefore entirely unreasonable to find common ground on what is and is not fundamentally morally acceptable or unacceptable regardless of anything else

Even if moral absolutism was a good thing in theory, under current circumstances it is completely unworkable because, if God exists and is in possession of absolute and objective rules for moral conduct, for some reason he has not deigned to clearly inform us of what these are. So we have to go around as if we are moral relativists and try to come up with rules that work the best of all concerns.

For instance, suppose we are setting the road system of a new country and are deciding whether vehicles can drive on the left or right hand side. As moral relativists we can simply take the position that neither side is the "right" side, and the important thing is that we are all driving on the same side. However, the moral absolutists would say that there is only one correct side on which to drive, the one that God wants us to drive on. And, inevitably, there will be groups on both side who insist that their side is the one that should be driven on. In such a situation, there would be no way to resolve such an impasse short of one side defeating and subjugating the other, usually thru the warfare of other violent means. I fail to see the advantage in that, myself.

This stuff is on the same level as Gene Ray's Timecube ramblings.

Dolorian wrote:This stuff is on the same level as Gene Ray's Timecube ramblings.

Yes and no. Yes, the level of argumentation is about the same. But no, because Timecube Guy is unversally recognized as a crank and a nut. Whereas you will here this same type of argument made by respectable academic theologians.

Yeah, that really isn't a good comparison. Gene Ray is highly imaginative and uniquely deranged, though deserving of sympathy for possibly being mentally very ill. The triabloguer, by contrast, is just spouting commonplace bland shite that you hear from theists all the fucking time. There's nothing remotely novel in that blog post, and phrases like "intrinsic value" and "objective moral norms" are straight off the apologetics production line. By contrast: "harmonic 24 hour Days rotate simultaneously within a single 4 quadrant rotation of a squared equator and cubed Earth" is a work of brilliant madness.

Goodness gracious, I’ve never seen such a prodigious misuse of straw! Old MacDonald would be furious!

This is a problem with atheists. For instance, some atheists get very irate when Christians point out that atheism leads to moral relativism or nihilism.

...like it did when those nihilistic atheists hijacked commercial airplanes and flew them into skyscrapers because they thought it would guarantee them a place in an eternal paradise. Oh, wait….

Yet other atheists candidly admit that atheism leads to moral relativism or even moral nihilism. But having made that admission, they think the debate should proceed as if that didn’t mark a turning point in the debate.

And some Christians candidly admit that believing in Jesus means that you should bomb abortion clinics and murder homosexuals. What’s his point here?

They think it was sporting of them to concede that point, and it’s rather unsportsmanlike for Christians to keep dragging that back into every debate.

It’s not unsportsmanlike; it’s moronic, hypocritical and disingenuous.

If there is no objective morality, then why are they arguing for anything?

Oh gee, I don’t know. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that we live in a world of cause-and-effect along with other people and living creatures?

Likewise, atheists not only admit, but insist on the fact that evolution is blind. It has no prevision or purpose. Brains weren’t made to think. Yet they still act as if their brains were made to think.

He fundamentally misunderstands the concept of “purpose”; it is something which derives from mechanism, rather than preceding it. Brains weren’t made to do anything, they evolved to fulfil various survival functions in response to dynamic circumstances.

Likewise, they admit that what we value has no intrinsic value. Evolution has programmed us to project value on certain things. But that’s an illusion.

Define “intrinsic”. Not having “intrinsic” value is not the same as having no value at all. We value things for practical reasons, i.e. because they are conducive towards survival, reproduction, social harmony, a sense of security, and/or pleasurable feeling.

We value love. We value our parents, kids, spouse, and friends. Yet there’s nothing objectively right or good about loving friends and family. That’s just brain chemistry. The indifferent effect of a thoughtless process conditioning us to feel that way.

See above. Again the author is putting the purpose cart before the mechanism horse. Similarly he is accusing rationalists of believing in a “thoughtless process” when in fact this process gives rise to thought as an emergent phenomenon. The author is effectively admitting that he is scared of deconstructing his own thinking process because he is under the misapprehension that it will necessarily invalidate his thoughts and emotions. Even if this process weren’t “thoughtless” (as he misinterprets it), how does he propose that we explain the essential underlying “thoughtfulness” of that process let alone conclude that said thoughtfulness has “intrinsic” value?

Pull its string and the doll cries. It doesn’t cry because there’s something worth crying about.

He’s overlooking the fact that humans are a tad more complex than dolls.

Atheists cry when a loved one dies. Yet they can retrace the process. They can see the pull-string. They can see evolution tugging their string. They don’t cry because the death of their loved one actually means anything. They cry because blind evolution pulled their string. A doll’s prerecorded cry at the demise of another doll.

I wonder if the author gets any satisfaction out of films. I mean after all, he can rationally retrace the process by which the films are constructed and the characters developed…

They can see evolution take the doll apart. They can see evolution operating on themselves. They dissect themselves. Peel back the layers. Cloth. Metal. Plastic. A pile of parts. The more you look the less you find.

Yep, he’s scared of looking too closely. He’s effectively arguing that ignorance is bliss.

But there is no “rest of his life” to plan for. At most, he can make funeral arrangements. Pick a coffin. Pick a tombstone. Prepay the florist. Buy a cemetery plot. Choose an epitaph.

Or maybe he can go bungy-jumping, or sky-diving, or reconcile old disputes, or ensure that he leaves a worthwhile legacy to his loved ones? It is a sad reflection of the author’s own pessimistic mindset that he seems to think that the imminence of one’s own irreversible non-existence would somehow make one less motivated to get the most out of life than believing that one has an eternity of existence ahead of them to look forward to.